Bruce Smith's comments about the hypocrisy of the Louisiana voting public in voting for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and demanding greater oil industry regulation now must be qualified. In the first place, it must be noted that while a majority of those who voted in Louisiana voted for Bush, a much larger portion either voted for the Democratic candidate in both contests or did not vote at all. The same also goes for the 2008 election.

Despite what demoralized liberals such as Mr. Smith might be led to believe, the American people are not stupid. The overwhelming fact of American political life is not lingering conservatism, but complete dissatisfaction with both ends of the traditional spectrum. As the experiences of first Bush and now Obama demonstrate, it is right that they should be so. It is a crucial necessity, therefore, that we develop the political leadership needed to show the body politic a viable alternative to the two-party system, and not to whine impotently about the supposed political naivete of the American public.

The libertarian conception of liberty raises troubling moral questions. Ordinarily, one person's right cannot impugn upon the rights of another. This therefore limits one's legitimate field of action in proportion to the number of rights each person is assumed to have. Libertarians, seeking maximum liberty, solve this problem by whittling down the number of rights each person holds to only those inalienable rights guaranteed by natural law: life, liberty itself, and property. Some obvious questions are raised: isn't increasing personal liberty at the expense of the rights of others fundamentally antisocial? Doesn't this conception of rights inevitably lead to legitimizing the rule of the strong over the weak, since people no longer have rights to protect them? If you read any of Ayn Rand's work, you will realize that the answer to both of these questions is "yes." In fact, libertarianism leads us inevitably to a moral quandary: by virtue of historical circumstances, such as class, race, gender etc, some people are more able to enjoy their life, liberty, and property than others. What's more, it is against libertarian philosophy to correct this imbalance: for example, Rand Paul opposes the Civil Rights act for the reason that it infringes upon the rights of storekeepers to their own liberty. We are thus left with an Orwellian contradiction: all people are created equal, but some people are created more equal than others. Put bluntly, freedom for libertarians means freedom to oppress. All of this does not mean, however, that libertarians necessarily support oppression; they are simply immobilized against it by their own philosophy. Libertarianism is thus not only regressive, but a moral hazard as well. Furthermore, it is seriously and fatally logically flawed, since its deepest thought leads inevitably to contradiction.

"As a politician, he believes we are at the state in our society that such businesses would die a fast death for practicing such hatred, thus keeping the government out of dealing with the issue."

They didn't die a fast death during Jim Crow. Why exactly does Mr. Paul think things are different now? Could it possibly be because such discriminatory practices have been illegal for nearly fifty years now and thus multiple generations have grown up in the South without the blight of Jim Crow?

While we're on the subject, between the end of the Civil War in 1865 and the rise of Jim Crow in the mid 1890s, blacks throughout the South formed a formidable voting bloc. This had nothing to do with a change in popular opinion and everything to do with the relative degree of protection afforded to blacks by the occupying Union Army. Within two decades of the withdrawal of union troops, the substantial gains blacks made in this postwar period were completely erased. The question I have is this: were Rand Paul alive then, would he have opposed Reconstruction on the same philosophical grounds upon which he opposes the Civil Rights Act? To put it bluntly, would he have adopted the same Orwellian stance he does now, and advocated allowing one portion of the public to sink into servile depredation in the name of liberty?

"As a politician, he believes we are at the state in our society that such businesses would die a fast death for practicing such hatred, thus keeping the government out of dealing with the issue."

They didn't die a fast death during Jim Crow. Why exactly does Mr. Paul think things are different now? Could it possibly be because such discriminatory practices have been illegal for nearly fifty years now and thus multiple generations have grown up in the South without the blight of Jim Crow?

While we're on the subject, between the end of the Civil War in 1865 and the rise of Jim Crow in the mid 1890s, blacks throughout the South formed a formidable voting bloc. This had nothing to do with a change in popular opinion and everything to do with the relative degree of protection afforded to blacks by the occupying Union Army. Within two decades of the withdrawal of union troops, the substantial gains blacks made in this postwar period were completely erased. The question I have is this: were Rand Paul alive then, would he have opposed Reconstruction on the same philosophical grounds upon which he opposes the Civil Rights Act? To put it bluntly, would he have adopted the same Orwellian stance he does now, and advocated allowing one portion of the public to sink into servile depredation in the name of liberty?

Oh look, yet another union that prefers whining to striking. And make no mistake: if the teachers' unions' brass were really serious about opposing this, they would be talking about striking right about now. You conservatives have nothing to fear as long as unions like the LFT are at the helm. They don't exactly rise to Greek standards of labor militancy.

So, according to the Louisiana Workforce Commission, Orleans Parish is home to some 12,000 "public administration" workers. Average wage is $1171 per week. Incidentally, the city is also in a $30M hole. Expect either one of those first two statistics to go down sharply sometime within the next four years.

Why the hell do we always mark the decline of New Orleans with the election of Dutch? Why don't we mark it earlier, like with the ascension of that racist clod Schiro? Or even better, why don't we accept that the real reasons for the decline of New Orleans were 1)the decline of the port, and 2)the racist hysteria that accompanied desegregation?

So it would seem the health care task force wants to move forward with the LSU/VA hospital project. The only poll I'm aware of that even asked residents (which admittedly was conducted by a group in favor of rebuilding charity), showed that 2/3s of the population was in favor of rebuilding charity over building a new LSU hospital. If we're really concerned about "the severe financial constraints facing the city," renovating Charity would cost less money and take years less time. We also have the funds to start immediately, in contrast to the LSU hospital project.

I mean, granted, it's practically a moot point by now, but it still makes me mad.

yeah, and if you look at old Soviet propaganda posters you will find some that praise Martin Luther King.

Chavez and Castro, the unsavory characters that they are, have their own reasons for supporting the healthcare bill. I actually oppose the bill, but those two throwing their support behind it is not a sufficient reason to oppose it.

Gutterpunks are hilarious. I don't know what's wrong with you guys. They eat out of the garbage and shoplift rather than suffer the indignity of getting a job and "supporting world capitalism," whatever that means. They have a very elaborate, yet muddle-headed political theory that tells them that anything that doesn't feel good isn't worth doing and that antisocial behavior is revolutionary.